Environmental agencies lead on climate change, but most action is from energy agencies (C.3).

California has a balanced approach to GHG reduction: regulations, best practices, incentives, market mechanisms. It has rejected a purely command & control regulatory approach (C.3).

Market issues are the most challenging – establishing sector responsibilities to reduce (C.4).

California must reduce emissions from electricity imports, despite its lack of jurisdiction. A load-based (not generation-based) approach is anticipated, whereby the load-serving entities (utilities) receive a carbon budget & they decide on what generation sources to spend it (C.5).

In California and BC, transportation is the main source (40%) of GHG emissions. California’s Low-Carbon Fuel Standard aims to reduce the carbon content of fuels 10% by 2020 (C.6).

Community action is required on energy efficiency – building codes, official community plans (K.2, K.4).

Dynamic pricing works to change behaviour, but it is rarely used (M.5, page 31).

Stakeholder processes exist in California, but not in BC – time consuming, but effective (M.7).

Pine-beetle kill in BC is a huge climate change message (G.1).

Conclusions

• Energy efficiency and GHG control programs must focus on four factors: Energy, Environment, Economy, Community (B.1, D.1, D.6). • Customers have absorbed huge fuel price increases, without much change in behaviour; thus, behaviour forcing initiatives are needed on the supplier-side (C.6). • Transport fuel emissions will get worse (more Tar Sands, etc.) in the absence of standards (C.6). • National and international collaboration is essential – WCI, Climate Registry ... to set targets, measure and report (C.7). • Transport emissions are #1 source; half personal, requiring denser communities & transit (G.2). • Most 2020 targets can be achieved with existing technology (G.5). • Municipalities can do much to advance the climate change agenda (H.1). • Green rating systems for vehicle fleets result in improved operation & vehicle mix (K.6, K.7). • Average Canadian emits 5 t/yr carbon – challenge is to change consumption habits (L.1, L.2). • Carbon tax (clear impact) is generally preferable to Cap & Trade (uncertain impact). In Europe, under Cap & Trade, the price of carbon collapsed from € 20 to € 1 – then recovered (J.4). • Carbon tax is simpler than Cap & Trade, but nothing happens if it’s not high enough (M.3). • The issue now is how to meet GHG and energy goals, not whether (F.5). • Our quality of life is the result of plentiful cheap energy. This will change. (I.1). • There are three basic energy sources: fossil fuels, nuclear power, renewables (J.2). • There are four basic end-uses: transportation, industry, commercial, residential (J.2). • Good geothermal sites exist in PNW, no serious discussion. Nuclear unlikely in PNW (H.2). • Renewable energy sources are intermittent, but can complement each other (I.4). • A system dominated by renewables would involve intermittent sources, power shaping, and a smart grid, able to respond in milli-seconds to unpredictable changes in load and supply (I.3). • Plug-in Hybrids can provide significant storage for renewables-dominated systems (I.6). • Of BC’s large fossil fuel exports, only the GHG of production is counted, not end-use (H.1). • Hydrogen is costly to produce and currently has limited applications: e.g. Space shuttle (J.6). • Electric vehicles with batteries are 90% efficient; with hydrogen fuel cell, only 34% (J.3). • Plug-in hybrids recharged from grid have battery efficiency, and good range (J.3). • Electricity is still sold on “push” basis (other industries it’s demand pull) and is one of the few industries where customers have little understanding of their usage; this needs to change (M.2).